Agriculture: Terrorist Threat

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the light of the current foot and mouth outbreak, what is their evaluation of the vulnerability of agriculture to agro-biological warfare; and what arrangements are they making in their defence policy to deal with any such vulnerability.

Baroness Hayman: Her Majesty's Government are alert to the potential threat to the UK of all forms of chemical and biological warfare. Contingency plans are maintained to minimise the consequences in the event of an attack. The most effective defence against the terrorist threat is good intelligence, efficient procedures to contol the entry of people and materials into the UK, and the means to respond effectively to incidents.
	This threat is being considered by an interdepartmental group led by the Home Office and including the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Defence with a remit to establish the vulnerabilities, threats and risk to the UK as a whole. Planning assumptions will be reconsidered in the light of the results of these considerations.

Brain Tissue Transplant Treatment for Parkinson's Disease

The Duke of Montrose: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many patients with Parkinson's disease were treated by the late Professor Edward Hitchcock of the Midlands Centre for neurosurgery and neurology, Birmingham, by transplanting foetal tissue into the brain.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Professor Hitchcock performed 55 brain tissue transplant procedures on patients with Parkinson's disease whilst at the Midland Centre for Neurosurgery and Neurology prior to its amalgamation into the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust early in 1996.

Brain Tissue Transplant Treatment for Parkinson's Disease

The Duke of Montrose: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the origin of the foetal tissue used in experimental operations on Parkinson's disease by Professor Edward Hitchcock; and whether the biological parents of the foetus were made aware of its use.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The foetal tissue used in experimental operations on Parkinson's disease by Professor Hitchcock was obtained from aborted foetuses. Consent was obtained from the biological mothers.

Brain Tissue Transplant Treatment for Parkinson's Disease

The Duke of Montrose: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assessement has been made of the efficacy of the use of foetal tissue or stem cell tissue transplantation in the treatment of Parkinson's disease or Huntington's chorea; and at what hospitals or institutes this technique has so far been practised; and
	What evidence there is that the use of embryonic stem cell tissue may be more efficacious in the treatment of Parkinson's disease than the transplant of foetal tissue.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Chief Medical Officer's Report, Stem cell research: Medical progress with responsibility, published last year, considered the potential of embryonic stem cells as a source of new tissues for the treatment of Parkinson's disease and Huntington's disease. Such research is at a very early stage and it may be several years before therapeutic benefits are available.
	The Government are not aware of any hospital or institute currently involved in research using embryonic stem cell tissue in the treatment of Parkinson's disease and Huntington's disease in the United Kingdom.

Wythenshawe Hospital Heart Transplant Unit

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will respond to the letter from Professor David Harnden (a copy of which was sent by Lord Morris of Manchester to Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) about the future of the Wythenshawe Hospital Transplant Centre; and whether they will place their response in the Library of the House.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We will respond to the letter from Professor David Harnden. The substance of the reply is on record. (Adjournment Debate in another place, Official Report, 27 March 2001, cols. 229WH-236WH).

Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists: Ministerial Meeting

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What response there has been from the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists to the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath's indication, during the Committee stage of the Health and Social Care Bill on 15 March, that he would be happy to meet representatives of the society to discuss issues associated with the Feet First report; and whether they expect the meeting to take place soon.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We have agreed to meet the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists and we are awaiting their response.

Nigerian State Funds: Requests to Freeze

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, following the explanation given to them by the Nigerian authorities of the limited scope of Decree 53 of 1999, which concerns only the forfeiture of assets of certain persons in relation to the Ajaokuta claims, they are now in a position to help the Nigerian Government to freeze bank accounts controlled by the Abacha family and their associates.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Her Majesty's Government confirm that they received on 21 March 2001 a response from lawyers acting on behalf of the Government of Nigeria to the queries raised by them in September 2000. These are now being considered by Counsel acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, who will advise the Secretary of State in due course.
	Her Majesty's Government remain anxious to assist the Government of Nigeria and welcome the responses now received. They emphasise however that any action they take must be in accordance with United Kingdom domestic law in relation to such assistance.

European Union Common Policies and Departmental Responsibilities

Lord Tebbit: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will list those departments of state whose policies are not subject to common policies adopted by the European Union.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: All government departments have responsibility for some policy areas which are covered by common policies adopted by the European Union.

Israeli Blockades in West Bank and Gaza

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they and their European Union partners are discussing the blockades in the West Bank and Gaza, and in particular the cutting off of roads to Bir Zeit University, with the Government of Israel; if so, with what result; and whether they consider that the blockades constitute violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and of other bilateral agreements.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We regularly discuss the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories with our European Union partners. These discussions often focus on the Israeli policy of closures and the serious concerns we have about this policy on political, legal and humanitarian grounds. The Stockholm European Council reaffirmed the EU's position that Israel must lift the closures.
	It is hard to justify the closures purely on security grounds, as Israel has argued. The closures radicalise the Palestinian population and fuel violence in the Occupied Territories. They cannot, therefore, achieve their stated purpose.
	The internal closures are also imposed as a collective punishment. Both Prime Minister Sharon and Foreign Minister Peres have made clear that closures will be lifted in areas where there is no violence and strictly imposed where violence continues. The external restrictions, especially on the import of building materials and the export of agricultural products, would also seem to have no relevance to the maintenance of security. Collective punishments are prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
	We have called upon Israel to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949.

European Security and Defence Policy: NATO Access

Lord Shore of Stepney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale on 19 March (WA 121), what is the difference between "guaranteed access" and the "presumption of availability" in respect of NATO assets; and whether they will list those NATO "capabilities and common assets" to which reference is made in the Answer.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Guaranteed access to NATO's planning capabilities means that the EU will have guaranteed permanent access to NATO's planning capacities without case-by-case NATO authorisation.
	Presumption of availability in respect of other NATO assets and common capabilities means that NATO will in principle be ready to provide such support, but will decide case-by-case on the release of assets for an EU-led operation. A list of the relevant capabilities and common assets has not yet been drawn up.

European Human Rights Convention, Protocol 7: Ratification

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to ratify Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government intend to ratify Protocol 7 when legislation revoking four family law rules has been passed. We await a suitable legislative opportunity.

Diplomatic Passports

Baroness Seccombe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many diplomatic passports have been issued in the last 12 months; and which countries the individuals to whom they have been issued represent.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: 1,891 British diplomatic passports have been issued in the last 12 months to representatives of Her Majesty's Government serving at British diplomatic missions overseas and their dependants.

Diplomatic Passports

Baroness Seccombe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What meetings have taken place in the last 12 months between the Baroness Scotland of Asthal and Mr Keith Vaz MP concerning passports, and in particular diplomatic passport applications.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: None.

Diplomatic Passports

Baroness Seccombe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the names of foreign nationals who have been granted diplomatic passports in the last 12 months.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No foreign nationals have been granted British diplomatic passports: only British nationals are entitled to carry such passports.

Telecommunications Sector: Third Generation Problems

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the light of recent reports of meetings between the Department of Trade and Industry and companies in the telecommunications sector to discuss difficulties associated with 3G (third Generation), how they intend to respond to the proposed European Commission initiative in this area.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: DTI officials meet regularly with all telecommunications companies, and discuss a wide range of technical and regulatory issues. The Government are always prepared to discuss issues of commercial and regulatory interest with the operators.
	The Commission Communication proposes three broad areas for discussion with member states and operators:
	(a) Getting the future regulatory framework right. This refers directly back to the ongoing negotiations under the 1999 communications review;
	(b) Deploying R&D and the eEurope programmes in support of 3G sevices;
	(c) Facilitating deployment of 3G networks under current legislation.
	Where the Commission comes forward with specific proposals, we will obviously discuss them with the Commission, other member states and industry.
	In the meantime, of course we have shared the Communication with companies in the sector, giving them every opportunity to give us their comments directly.

Telecommunications Sector: Third Generation Problems

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What the budgetary implications for the Treasury are in the event that the European Commission suggestion that payment for 3G (Third Generation) licences should be deferred is adopted.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The five operators who won 3G licences in the UK auction have all paid in full for their licences. The Commission's proposal is therefore not relevant to the UK.

Partners in Innovation: Research Funding

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	(a) How many applications were received in 2000 for funding from the Partners in Innovation scheme, funded by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to promote sustainable construction; (b) how many were successful; and (c) who were the successful applicants.

Lord Whitty: My department initially sought first stage outline proposals and received 733 of these. Two hundred and fifty-nine were taken forward to the second stage, for which full proposals were required. Following the second stage appraisals, 115 proposals were successful in securing funding under the scheme.
	The Partners in Innovation prospectus made it clear that all research proposals should be able to demonstrate relevance to one or more of the key economic, social and environmental policy aims of sustainable construction.
	The successful applicants for Partners in Innovation 2000 funding (number of projects in brackets) were:
	ABS Consulting (1)
	Battle McCarthy (1)
	Bio Regional Development Group (1)
	British Council for Offices (1)
	Building Cost Information Service Ltd (2)
	Building Research Establishment (17)
	Building Services Research and Information Association (7)
	Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd (1)
	Centre for Window and Cladding Technology (1)
	CERAM Building Technology (1)
	Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (2)
	Chiltern International Fire (3)
	Co-Construct (2)
	Confederation of Construction Clients (1)
	Construction Industry Computing Association (2)
	Construction Industry Council (2)
	Construction Industry Research and Information Association (16)
	Construction Products Association (1)
	Construction Project Information Committee (1)
	Corus, Swinden Technology Centre (1)
	David Bartholomew Associates (1)
	Design & Build Foundation (1)
	ECD Energy and Environment Ltd (1)
	Energy for Sustainable Development (ESD) Ltd (1)
	ENSR (1)
	European Construction Institute (2)
	Gaia Architects (2)
	Glass and Glazing Federation (2)
	Greenfile Developments Ltd (1)
	HR Wallingford Group Ltd (6)
	Kingston University (1)
	Leeds Metropolitan University (1)
	Lovell Partnerships Ltd (1)
	Mortar Industry Association (1)
	Movement for Innovation (1)
	NBA Tectonics Ltd (1)
	Oscar Faber Group Ltd (3)
	The Palmer Partnership (1)
	Stanger Science and Environment (2)
	Steel Construction Institute (3)
	TRADA Technology Limited (7)
	Trend 2000 Ltd (1)
	University of Dundee (4)
	University of Luton (1)
	University of Northumbria (1)
	University of Strathclyde (1)
	University of Ulster (1)
	University of West England (1)
	Waste Management & Technology Centre (1)

Social Housing Provision in Small Settlements

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many units of housing were provided by registered social landlords and/or local authorities in settlements of under 3,000 people in 1999-2000 and 2000-01.

Lord Whitty: Registered social landlords provided 1,058 new units through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme, and local authorities provided 489 new units through the Local Authority Social Housing Grant programme, in settlements of under 3,000 people in 1999-2000.
	I will write to the noble Baroness when the figures for 2000-01 are available.

Tourist Attraction Admissions and Sales: VAT

Lord Rotherwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the light of the foot-and-mouth crisis, whether they are considering a VAT reduction from 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent on admissions and sales at tourist attractions to help these businesses avoid bankruptcy.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government have no current plans to reduce VAT on admissions and sales at tourist attractions.

Special Educational Needs Children: Support Funding

Lord Northbourne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their estimate of the total cost and the average cost per child of providing support for children with special educational needs and disabilities in mainstream schools, broken down by type of disability and need and by category of expenditure (capital costs/recurrent costs including additional staffing) in each of the next five years; and
	What proportion of the cost of special support services for children with special educational needs and disabilities in mainstream schools during each of the next five years will be borne by:
	(a) central government;
	(b) local education authorities (or local authorities);
	(c) the schools themselves out of existing budgets;
	(d) fees and charges paid by the parents of the children concerned; and
	(e) charitable donations raised by the school.

Baroness Blackstone: The department's funding estimates do not distinguish between different types of pupil. It is for LEAs to allocate resources between schools with regard to local needs and circumstances.
	In the current year more than £22 billion is available for the education of school children, including children with special educational needs. Over £1 billion of this is used by LEAs to provide additional support for children with special educational needs. When allocating budgets to schools in 2000-01, LEAs also identified over £1.7 billion as notionally allocated towards special educational needs. However, it is for schools to decide exactly how they spend this funding taking account of their statutory duties towards children with special educational needs.
	Our plans allow for a real terms increase in overall education funding per pupil of nearly £750 by 2003-04 compared to 1997-98. This includes the 20 per cent of all pupils who have special educational needs, the overwhelming majority of whom are educated in mainstream schools. We are, however, also committed to a buoyant and vibrant specialist sector, which is demonstrated by the increased funding for pupils at special schools. Under this Government there has been an increase of 20 per cent in real terms funding per special school pupil between 1997-98 and 2000-01.
	Total capital spending on schools, including PFI credits, will be £8.5 billion for the period 2001-02 to 2003-04. This will add to the £5.4 billion invested since 1997. Capital spending includes the Schools Access Initiative, for which we have already announced £220 million funding over the next three years. This will improve access to mainstream schools for disabled children.
	We have also made £82 million of supported expenditure available for special educational needs in next year's Standards Fund (2001-02). This compares to £55 million this year. The fund can be used for a range of activities, including training for staff in special educational needs, improvements in speech and language therapy provision for children with communication difficulties, the provision of information and advice to parents, and the greater inclusion of children with SEN in the mainstream.
	As regards support services for children with SEN and disabilities in mainstream schools, these are not directly funded by central government. Funding for schools is allocated and distributed via Education Standard Spending to local education authorities (LEAs), which together with schools, have a duty to ensure appropriate provision for all children in their area, including those with special educational needs. It is for them to decide upon the provision of special support services, taking due account of local circumstances.
	In our policy paper, The Role of the Local Education Authority in School Education, issued last October, we made clear that there are a number of essential LEA functions which cannot and should not be discharged by schools. Examples of this include running high quality educational psychology and support teaching services and developing close inter-agency partnerships with health and social services.
	The relative amounts spent by schools and LEAs on SEN vary, reflecting different levels of delegated funding.